IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Abdalla Amin, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 773 C.D. 2022

Respondent : Submitted: March 24, 2023

BEFORE: HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON FILED: May 9, 2023

Petitioner, Abdalla Amin (Claimant), pro se, seeks review of an order 

of the Unemployment Compensation (UC) Board of Review (Board) dated June 28, 

2022. The Board affirmed a referee’s decision dismissing Claimant’s appeal of two 

initial determinations by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, Office 

of UC Benefits (Department) that denied UC benefits and found Claimant received 

non-fault overpayments of UC benefits. The referee concluded, and the Board 

affirmed, that Claimant’s appeal from the Department’s initial determinations was 

untimely under Section 501(e) of the UC Law,1 43 P.S. § 821(e). Upon review, we 

affirm the Board’s order.

1 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 821(e).
2

On September 29, 2020, the Department mailed Claimant a notice of 

an initial determination denying UC benefits because Claimant failed to meet his 

burden to prove a valid work authorization issued by the United States Citizenship 

and Immigration Services. Certified Record (C.R.) at 21, 71, 80. The notice 

provided appeal instructions and stated Claimant had to appeal within 15 days, or by 

October 14, 2020. Id. at 36, 73, 80.

2

 On June 11, 2021, the Department sent 

Claimant a notice of an initial determination of a non-fault overpayment. Id. at 36, 

71. Thirty-six days later, on July 27, 2021, Claimant appealed both initial 

determinations. Id. at 32, 35, 43, 80. In his appeal document, Claimant did not 

address the timeliness of his appeal; he merely alleged that he was not working 

during the periods for which he received UC benefits. Id. at 41. 

The Department issued a notice of a referee hearing concerning 

Claimant’s appeal. C.R. at 53. The notice listed the issues to be addressed at the 

hearing, specifically including whether Claimant filed a timely appeal from the 

initial determinations. Id. The referee held a telephone hearing on February 9, 2022. 

Id. at 53. At the hearing, Claimant acknowledged that he received the notices of 

determination. Id. at 73, 80. He stated he did not remember when he sent his appeal, 

but that he resent it on July 27, 2021. Id. at 74. However, the record contains no 

evidence of any earlier appeal. Id. at 80.

On February 9, 2022, following the telephone hearing, the referee 

issued a decision dismissing Claimant’s appeal as untimely. C.R. at 79-82. 

Claimant timely appealed to the Board from the referee’s dismissal. Id. at 89-95. 

On June 28, 2022, the Board issued an order affirming the referee’s dismissal of 

Claimant’s appeal of the initial determinations. Id. at 106-08. Before the Board, 

2

 The appeal deadline was expanded from 15 to 21 days as of July 24, 2021.
3

Claimant argued that the referee did not allow him to offer evidence; however, the 

hearing transcript shows that the referee asked Claimant twice whether he had 

anything else he wanted to offer, including evidence regarding timeliness, and he 

said he did not. Id. at 74, 77, 106-07. The Board found no evidence of fraud or 

administrative breakdown that would excuse Claimant’s untimely appeal. Id. at 107.

Section 501(e) of the UC Law provides that a party has 21 (formerly

15) days to appeal a referee’s decision to the Board. 43 P.S. § 821(e). The 

Department’s associated regulation calculates the deadline for the appeal of a UC

determination from the date the decision was delivered personally or placed into the 

mail. 34 Pa. Code § 101.82. If an appeal is not timely filed, the determination 

becomes final, and the Board does not have the requisite jurisdiction to consider the 

matter. Hessou v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 942 A.2d 194, 197-98 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2008) (citing Darroch v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 627 A.2d 1235 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 1993)). An appeal filed even one day after the appeal period is 

untimely. Hessou, 942 A.2d at 198 (citing Dumberth v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. 

of Rev., 837 A.2d 678 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (en banc)).

The Board may consider an untimely appeal only in limited 

circumstances. Hessou, 942 A.2d at 198 (citing Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev. 

v. Hart, 348 A.2d 497 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975)). A claimant seeking to establish the right 

to an untimely appeal bears a heavy burden, because the statutory time limit for 

appeals is mandatory. Hessou, 942 A.2d at 198 (citing Blast Intermediate Unit No.

17 v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 645 A.2d 447 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994)). To 

satisfy his burden, a claimant must show fraudulent behavior or manifestly wrongful 

or negligent conduct by the administrative authority or non-negligent conduct 

beyond the claimant’s control that caused the delay. Hessou, 942 A.2d at 198 (citing 
4

Bass v. Commonwealth, 401 A.2d 1133 (Pa. 1979)). “[F]ailure to file an appeal 

within fifteen days, without an adequate excuse for the late filing, mandates 

dismissal of the appeal.” Hessou, 942 A.2d at 198 (quoting U.S. Postal Serv. v. 

Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 620 A.2d 572, 573 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993)) 

(additional quotation marks omitted).

Here, the record is bare of any evidence of a timely appeal from the 

Department’s initial determinations. The record is likewise bare of evidence that 

Claimant had an adequate excuse for the late filing. As noted above, although 

Claimant apparently argued to the Board that the referee somehow kept him from 

submitting evidence regarding the timeliness of his appeal, the hearing transcript 

clearly reflects that the referee asked Claimant twice whether he wished to offer any 

additional evidence concerning the timeliness issue, and that Claimant responded in 

the negative both times. C.R. at 74, 77, 106-07. We agree with the Board that the 

record contains no evidence of fraud or administrative breakdown that would excuse 

Claimant’s untimely appeal. See id. at 107. We further observe that there is no 

record evidence of non-negligent conduct beyond Claimant’s control that caused the 

delay. Accordingly, we are constrained to affirm the Board’s order.

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Abdalla Amin, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 773 C.D. 2022

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 9th day of May, 2023, the June 28, 2022 order of the 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge